System and method for encrypting a data alert

ABSTRACT

A method and system for providing real-time encrypted data alerts over secure networks. The method and system detect the improper duplicate data records and generate alerts that indicate the improper duplication. The systems encrypt the data alerts and transmit them to remote devices over private, secure networks to protect sensitive data contained in the alerts.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation application of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 16/123,723, filed Sep. 6, 2018, which is acontinuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/451,039,filed Apr. 19, 2012, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional PatentApplication No. 61/477,096, filed Apr. 19, 2011, the disclosures ofwhich are incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Entities operating computer systems that are interconnected over largenetworks typically process and store large amounts of data. Oftentimes,these entities operate at a number of locations. Given the number oflocations involved, as well as the large amount of data being processedand stored, many times duplicate data records are processed and stored,which may lead to numerous problems. For example, the storage ofduplicative information can put a strain on data processing equipmentand may use up significant amounts of data storage. Moreover, theduplicative data may result in processing errors if the variouscomputers in the network attempt to process the data normally, withoutknowing about the other copies of data. Duplicative data issues are evenmore likely as various entities allow users to interact with its networkusing their personal mobile devices, such as cellular phones and tabletcomputers. Unsophisticated users may input and submit data multipletimes (intentionally or inadvertently) or otherwise cause duplicativedata to be created.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Embodiments of the invention provide systems and methods for identifyingduplicate data records, as well as for providing secure alerts toentities regarding the presence of duplicative data in real time.

In one exemplary embodiment, a system for encrypting data alertsincludes a remote source computing device, at least one remote recipientcomputing device, a private, secured network and an alert computingsystem. The private secured network may be configured to facilitatecommunication between the remote source computing device, the at leastone remote recipient computing device, and the alert computing system.The alert computing system may include a communication interfaceconfigured to receive and transmit data over the private, securednetwork, a processing unit, and a memory that includes instructionsstored thereon that when executed cause the processing unit to receive,using the communication interface, an encrypted data record over theprivate, secured network from the remote source computing device. Thedata record may be encrypted using one key of an asymmetric key pair.The instructions may further cause the processing unit to decrypt theencrypted data record using another key of the asymmetric key pair,retrieve, from the memory, previously stored data records, and parse thedecrypted data record to identify a data string identifying aninstrument. The instructions may also cause the processing unit toanalyze the data string against data on the stored data records,generate an alert that indicates a likelihood of improper use associatedwith the data string, and identify at least one remote recipient deviceassociated with the improper use. The instructions may cause theprocessing device to format the alert into a desired data format basedon hardware and software capabilities of the at least one remoterecipient computing device, encrypt the formatted alert using the onekey of the asymmetric key pair, and transmit, using the communicationinterface, the encrypted formatted alert and the assessed risk over theprivate, secured network to the at least one remote recipient computingdevice. The alert may include a command that causes the alert to displayon the at least one remote recipient computing device in real-time.

In another embodiment, a method for providing alerts over a network to aremote computing device is provided. The method may include receivingdata records at a computer system sent from at least one institutiondata source over a network. The computer system may include amicroprocessor and a memory that stores data preferences and alertpreferences for each of the one or more institutions. The microprocessormay store the data records and filter the received data records bycomparing each received data record to other data records stored at thecomputing system to determine if any data records are duplicative. Themicroprocessor may also generate an alert from the filtered data recordsthat contains an institution identifier, which specifies a source of aparticular duplicative data. The microprocessor may further determinethat the duplicative data record is improper and transmit the alert overa network communication channel to at least one remote computing deviceassociated with at least one of the one or more institutions based uponthe data preferences and alert preferences. The alert may cause thealert to display on the at least one remote computing device.

In another embodiment, a system for providing alerts over a network to aremote computing device is provided. The system may include a networkinterface, at least one processing device, and at least one memorydevice. The at least one memory device may be configured to store datapreferences and alert preferences for each of one or more institutions.The at least one memory device may include instructions that cause theat least one processing device to receive data records sent from atleast one institution data source over a network using the networkinterface. The instructions may also cause the at least one processingdevice to store the data records and filter the received data records bycomparing each received data record to other data records stored at thecomputing system to determine if any of the received data records areduplicative. The instructions may further cause the at least oneprocessing device to generate an alert from the filtered data recordsthat contains an institution identifier, which specifies a source of theduplicative data record. The instructions may cause the at least onecomputing device to assess a risk that the duplicative data record isimproper and transmit, using the network interface, the alert and theassessed risk over a network communication channel to at least oneremote computing device associated with at least one of the one or moreinstitutions based upon the data preferences and alert preferences. Thealert may cause the alert to display on the at least one remotecomputing device.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a network in which a plurality ofinstitutions are linked to a duplicate record detection system.

FIG. 2 illustrates exemplary functional modules within the processingsystem of the duplicate record detection system.

FIG. 3 illustrates a process for detecting duplicate data records in thenetwork of FIG. 1.

FIG. 4 illustrates an alternative process for detecting duplicate datarecords.

FIG. 5 illustrates a processing for providing alerts over a network to aremote computing device according to embodiments.

FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary computer system uponwhich embodiments of the invention may be implemented.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

There are various embodiments for implementing the present invention.Generally speaking, embodiments of the invention reduce or mitigateimproper duplicate records by detecting and identifying duplicative datarecords that are potentially improper and by transmitting alerts in realtime to affected entities.

In some embodiments, businesses, colleges, and other entities provide adata records to a central or third party data storage system. Therecords may include any type of data, including data that identifies thedata source, a time of the creation of the data record, otheridentification information of people or interactions with a particularentity, and/or any other type of data. The records are stored at thecentral system, and as new records are received from participatingcomputer systems, each new record is compared to previous records tofind any matches. Upon detecting duplicate entries, the system maydetermine whether it is likely that the duplicate entries are improper,and if so, the system may generate and transmit alerts that notify anyaffected entity that improper duplicative data has been detected. Thisprovides each affected entity an opportunity to address any detectedissues immediately.

The systems and methods described herein may also provide securetechniques for data transmission. Oftentimes, the data a particularentity may be communicating and/or storing may contain sensitiveinformation. The alert systems of the present invention may require thatall data records sent, received, and/or stored be encrypted. Forexample, the alert systems may encrypt and decrypt data records andalerts using asymmetric key pairs or using other encryption techniques.Additionally, communications with the alert system may be conductedexclusively using a private, secure network that has been established byand/or for use by the alert system and participating entities. Suchfeatures provide multiple levels of security to protect any sensitiveinformation contained in the data records and/or alerts.

In some embodiments, data records can be sent from participantinstitutions either in real time (as a data record is generated), or inbatch mode. A message (such as a duplicate entry alert) can be returnedin real time, informing the institution if the data record has beenmatched to one or more previously stored data records. As will bedescribed later in greater detail, the detection system may also returnother information such as a risk score associated with the duplicativedata record.

In other instances, an institution, may submit data records in batchform, say, at the end of each day. Such data records could each bereviewed against previous data records submitted for review in a batchform, as well as data records for which records have been previouslysubmitted in real time for review by the detection system.

As will also be described later, in some embodiments a process fordetermining whether a duplicate data record is an improper duplicate mayinvolve more than checking for matches. For example, in somecircumstances, a data record may be inadvertently processed or enteredtwice when received at a particular entity. For example, an employee (orother user interacting with the entity) may enter the data record morethan once. Such entry may be inadvertent or intentional. In othercircumstances, some records may be intended to be duplicative, such asinventory records where multiple items having a same identifier aretracked. Accordingly, in some embodiments of the invention, features areprovided for filtering out or excluding certain duplicate data recordsfrom being identified as improper duplicates. In yet other embodiments,features are provided that assess the risk that a duplicate data recordis improper duplicate (based on factors and/or circumstances surroundingthe data record, as well as on preferences and/or rules set by theentity associated with the duplicate entry) and providing a risk scoreto the participating institution, either in lieu of or in addition toindicating whether or not the data record is a duplicate.

Also, in some embodiments the duplicate detection system can be used inconjunction with other systems for assessing risk or detecting improperactivity. Thus, embodiments herein can be used with systems forassessing the risk of duplicate records of data, such as exemplified inU.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0013491, the entire disclosure of whichis incorporated herein by reference.

Turning now to the drawings, there is shown in FIG. 1 an exemplarynetwork 100 in which a duplicate data record detection system 110 isconnected for data records from one or more institutions 120. Asillustrated, the institutions 120 may include entities such asbusinesses, colleges, and/or other networked computer systems that mayinterface with a duplicate data record detection system 110.Institutions 120 and detection system 110 may be in communication withone another over one or more networks. In some embodiments, the one ormore networks includes a private, secure network that is established forfacilitating secure communications between the various devices ofnetwork 100 to protect any sensitive data communicated between theparties. It should be appreciated that the institutions 120 illustratedin FIG. 1 are only exemplary and not exclusive.

While the duplicate data record detection system 110 is illustrated asseparate from each of the institutions 120 (and thus operated by a thirdparty/entity apart from one of the institutions 120, as might bedesirable in order to maintain an relationship independent from any oneof the institutions), there are various alternate ways of operating thesystem 110, including the system being operated by one of theinstitutions 120.

The detection system 110 includes a processing system 130 and a datastorage or memory device 140. The processing system 130 manages datathat is received at system 110 and stores such data at storage device140. The processing system 110 also compares data records received fromthe institutions 120 against data records already stored in storagedevice 140 in order to identify duplicative data records that areimproper (or potentially improper), and generates alerts ornotifications that provide notice back to institutions 120 that mightreceive (or be affected by) duplicative data records.

FIG. 2 illustrates certain functional features carried out by processingsystem 130 in order to detect and identify duplicate data records, andin particular illustrates those features as three programmed modules. Itshould be appreciated that in some embodiments the modules mightrepresent executable software resident within internal memory of theprocessing system 130, and in other embodiments the modules might bedownloaded from external memory devices (such as storage device 140) forexecution at processing system 130. Other ways of implementing themodules in hardware and/or software are also possible.

The modules within processing system 130 include a noise suppression(filter) module 210, a risk analysis/scoring module 212, and an alertmodule 214. Many of the specific functional features provided by thesemodules will be described later in conjunction with FIGS. 3 and 4.However, briefly, noise suppression module 210 provide filters that,when enabled, will exclude or suppress certain data records from beingidentified as improper duplicates (e.g., when those data records havecharacteristics that are determined to likely provide false positives,i.e., tracking multiple items with a same identifier). Riskanalysis/scoring module 212 examines characteristics of duplicative datarecords and assesses the likelihood that a data record is in factduplicative, and in some embodiments, provides a score that reflects thedegree of likelihood. Alert module 214 provides an alert or notificationto one or more of the institutions 120 when a record of a data recordreceived at system 110 is determined to be (or likely to be) a duplicateand, hence, potentially improper. As should appreciated, thefunctionality generally depicted as being allocated to the threeidentified modules 210, 212 and 214 is so depicted for ease ofdescription in illustrating some notable features of the invention, andvarious features necessary or desirable for implementation in thosethree modules could be combined into fewer than three modules orseparated into more than three modules.

FIG. 3 is a simplified flow diagram illustrating the general operationof the system 110 in detecting and identifying duplicate data records,in accordance with one embodiment of the invention. As seen, the system110 receives from the institutions 120 data records, step 310. Asdescribed earlier, in some instances the receipt of a data record, suchas at step 310, may represent receipt of a single data record for asingle item, e.g., resulting from real time submission of the particulardata record to the alert system by one of the institutions at the timethe data record is conducted. In other cases, a group of data recordsmay be received together, such as when a large number of data recordsare provided in batch mode (e.g., at the end of each day).

At step 312, each newly received data record is compared against otherdata records (such as previously submitted/stored data records) bycomparing a data record received at system 110 against other datarecords stored at memory device 140. If there is a match, step 314, thenthe processing system 130 generates alerts to notify any institutionsaffected by the duplicate data records, step 316. If there is no matchat step 314, or if there is a match and after notifications are sent atstep 316, the current data record is stored (for comparison againstfuture data records), step 318. It should be noted that thenotifications sent at step 316 can be generated for distribution invarious ways. In one embodiment, an alert is sent to the institutionproviding the current data record that gave rise to the match (i.e., therecord that was matched against a previous data record), and an alert isalso sent to the institution that provided the previous (matched) datarecord. In some embodiments, multiple entities may be affected by aduplicate data file, such as when multiple entities cooperate to achievenetworked results. It should be noted that in many circumstancesmultiple institutions be alerted about the match, since each may beimpacted by an improper duplicate data record.

In other embodiments, the processing system could generate alerts toonly the institution providing the most recent data record (that gaverise to the match against a prior data record).

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating yet another embodiment in whichfilters are applied, risk factors associated with the match of two datarecords are assessed, and notifications are generated in accordance withthat assessment. In such embodiment, a data record is received at step410 and compared against prior data records at step 412. If there is nomatch (step 420), the received data record is stored (step 450). Ifthere is a match at step 420, then the processing system applies filtersto the match (using noise suppression module 210) to eliminate datarecords that might give rise to a false match, step 422. Filters may bespecified by each institution and/or may be based on previous experienceregarding what types of data records are likely to be duplicates and/orimproper. As another example of filtering, an institution submitting adata record for review might request only alerts for certain types ofdata records since the institution may consider the risk of improperduplicates of certain types of data records. Types of data records arereferred to herein as channel indicator types.

In accordance with another embodiment, at step 424 the processing systemcould then assess risk factors that might be associated with a duplicatedata records or with the circumstances surrounding its match to anearlier data record, using risk scoring/analysis module 212. Examples offactors that might be assessed at step 424 include a type of the datarecord, a timing of the duplicate entries, source information for theduplicate entries, historical data related to a particular data type,user, entity, or location, and the like.

The exemplary factors above (as well as other factors) could beconsidered together and weighted equally or differently to assess risk.Different participating institutions may assign different weights todifferent factors, and in some cases the institutions using the riskdata will choose different weights depending on their own experiences ortheir risk tolerance. For example, data could be collected and thenstatistically reviewed to identify patterns of events which predict anoutcome. For example, the design of a risk model could be based onanalysis of large numbers of past data records and the characteristicsof such data records. Based on that empirical and experiential data,predictive data can be generated as to how any given set ofcircumstances surrounding a data record might predict the future risk ofduplicate data records. The predictive characteristics are identifiedand then built into a model within module 212. In alternativeembodiments, neural models or rules models may be used instead ofstatistical models.

Also, channel indicator types (indicating the manner in which the datarecord is presented to an institution) could be used to assess risk (inaddition to use in filtering out matches as described earlier inconnection with step 422). For example, data records submitted remotely(such as from a remote device of a user) could be assigned a greaterrisk weight. In some circumstances the channel indicator types for boththe later matching data record and the earlier data record (againstwhich the later data record was matched) could be used. For example,when both the earlier and the later (duplicate) data record weresubmitted remotely, the risk could be weighted higher. If the earlierdata record were submitted in person at a device of the entity and thenthe later data record were submitted remotely, then the risk could beassessed and weighted much higher in some circumstances. In othercircumstances, such a factor could be weighted much lower.

After the risk factors have been assessed, the processing systemdetermines (perhaps based on a score generated at step 424) whether theduplicate data records are likely improper, step 426, and if so, analert (or multiple alerts to different institutions) are generated atalert module 214 and sent by the system 110, step 428. It should beappreciated that in sending an alert, a risk score could also be sent toeach affected institution, to permit the institution to betterunderstand the risk and determine what kind of remedial action to take,step 440. Finally, in FIG. 4, the data record submitted for review isstored at a data storage device (such as device 140).

Embodiments of the invention are directed to an alert system whereinstitutions, such as institutions 120, receive customized alerts ontheir computer systems. The systems and methods may provide techniquesfor notifying institutions of possible duplicate records in real-time,as the ability to rectify duplicative data entries may be timesensitive, especially if the duplicative entry was intentional, yetimproper. The present invention also may operate on a private, securednetwork (such as a private LAN or WLAN), with data transmissions beingencrypted for additional security. For example, alerts may be encryptedto prevent the communications (which may identify sensitive informationrelated to a particular item or person) from being read if interceptedby an unintended party. Further, the present invention allows eachinstitution to set preferences on how alerts are generated andtransmitted. For example, during enrollment in the alert system, eachinstitution may provide preference information related to a preferreddata, channel indicator types for which alerts should be sent, riskfactors, and/or other alert preferences. The institution may alsoprovide a communication destination address of a remote computing device(e.g., a number for a cellular phone, pager or PDA, short messageservice (SMS) handle, email address, URL for a website associated withthe institution, and the like), which may be used to directcommunications from the alert system and/or other institutions. Thisallows each institution to customize how a level of risk is determined,when to get alerts, the content of alerts, and/or the format of thealerts. The alert system uses a computing system (such as processingsystem 130) to receive data from a data source, such as one of theinstitutions, and send selected data, such as alerts, to otherinstitutions. The computing device includes a memory, a networkinterface including at least a transmitter and/or a receiver, and amicroprocessor.

In some embodiments, the alert system may provide an alert softwareapplication, mobile application, and/or application programminginterface (API) to each institution that allows a remote computingdevice of each institution to communicate with the alert system. Forexample, the alert system may provide software to an institution thatmay be downloaded and/or installed on the remote computing device ofeach institution. Once an institution enrolls or otherwise begins usingthe alert system, the alert system receives data records that identifyinstruments being presented at the one or more institutions sent from adata source to the computing system. The computing system filters thedata records based upon the institution preference information that isstored in memory on the computing device. That is, the computing devicecompares instruments associated with each of the received data recordsto instruments associated with stored data records. Next, an alert isbuilt containing the risk score, type of improper use, communicationaddress of a source of the duplicate entry (such as an address of theentity that submitted the duplicate entry a universal resource locator(URL) to a web page, an email address, short message service (SMS)handle, phone number, and/or other address that may allow the remotedevice to communicate with the data source from which the duplicate datarecord is received) and/or other information related to the particulardata record and affected institutions.

The alert may then formatted into a desired format based upon the alertformat preference information associated with an intended recipientinstitution. Subsequently, the formatted alerts are transmitted to oneor more remote computing devices of one or more of the institutions inaccordance with the alert preferences and risk models. The alert, riskscore, and information contained therein may be used by each institutionto determine how to mitigate or otherwise handle a possible incidence ofa duplicate data record. In some embodiments, after receiving the alert,the institution can use the communication address to contact anotheraffected institution using its own remote computing device. The alertcauses the remote computing device of the recipient institution toautomatically display the alert, such as by displaying a pushnotification or other indication using software associated with thealert system. The generation, transmission, and display of the alert maybe done in real-time to minimize the time needed by the entity to detectand rectify an instance of an improper duplicate entry. In someembodiments, the alert system may auto-launch the alert software and/ormobile application provided by the alert system to display the alert.When connected to the Internet or other communications network, therecipient institution may then click on the URL or other address in thealert to use the alert software, mobile application, browser, and/ormessaging service to communicate with the data source or other affectedinstitution regarding the particular alert.

By providing an alert that causes the alert to be automaticallydisplayed on the remote computing device in real-time to addressInternet-centric problems that arose after the invention of remote datasubmission using personal wireless devices, such as digital imagedeposits and other forms of electronic presentation of instruments.Specifically, embodiments of the invention address theseInternet-centric issues by providing real-time alerts that automaticallycause extremely time sensitive information (the alert) to display on aremote computing device of an institution immediately upon detection ofa second presentation attempt or other detected behavior that has a highrisk of being improper. In some embodiments, this alerting may be donein real-time even if the remote computing device is offline or notcurrently running an instance of the alert software or mobileapplication. This allows the present invention to address a furtherInternet-centric challenge of alerting an institution with timesensitive information, even if the institution is offline. Thischallenge is addressed by transmitting the alert over a networkcommunication channel, such as a wireless network, to activate the alertapplication or other software application, which causes the alert todisplay. The alert also may enable the connection of the remotecomputing device to the data source of the duplicative data record overa network when the remote computing device comes online and/or otherwiseopens the alert application or other software application. Additionally,the use of private, secured networks to send and receive encrypted datarecords and alerts ensures that any sensitive data stored on the datarecords and alerts (such as account numbers, personal identification,and the like) may not be read by unintended interceptors of the data.

Turning to FIG. 7, a simplified flow diagram illustrating a process 700for providing alerts over a network to a remote computing device isshown. Process 700 may be performed using an alert system (such assystem 110) and may contain any of the features described in relation toprocesses 300 and/or 400 described herein. At block 710, a computingdevice of the alert system (such as processing system 130) receives froma number of institutions (such as institutions 120) data records. Thedata records may, for example, contain data such as data that identifiesinstruments that have been presented or items used at one or more of theinstitutions. The data records may be received over a secure, privatenetwork, such as a LAN or WLAN or other private network that isestablished to facilitate communication between the alert system andparties interacting with the alert system. In some embodiments, each ofthe data records may be received from an institution in real-time, suchas immediately upon the institution generating the data record itself.Such real-time reporting helps minimize the amount of time that lapsesbefore a duplicate entry is detected and the affected entity is alerted.As described earlier, in some instances the receipt of a data record mayrepresent receipt of a single data record, while in other cases, largebatches of data records may be received together.

In some embodiments, the data records may be encrypted to protect anysensitive information included in the records. For example, theinstitution providing the data record may encrypt the data record usingone key of an asymmetric key pair. Upon receiving the encrypted datarecord, the computing device of the alert system may decrypt the datarecord, such as by using the other key of the asymmetric key pair. Thecomputing device may parse the decrypted data record to identify a datastring that identifies a particular instrument.

In some embodiments, the memory of the computing device may include riskfactor preferences, data format preferences, and/or alert preferencesfor each of one or more institutions. Such information may be providedby each institution upon enrollment or other initialization with thealert system and allows alerts to be customized for each institution.The memory may also store a communication address of each of theinstitutions. This communication address may include an email address, auniversal resource locator (URL), a short message service (SMS) handle,a phone number, and/or other identifier that may be used to direct anelectronic communication to a particular institution.

At block 712, each received data record may be stored on the memory ofthe computing device. At block 714, the receive data records may befiltered by comparing each received data record (or data stringidentifying a particular instrument) to other data records stored at thecomputing system (which may be retrieved by the computing device) todetermine if any of the received data records are duplicates. Forexample, each instrument (or data string identifying the instrument)associated with the received data records may be checked against theother instruments associated with the stored data records to ensure thatthere are no instruments that have been presented multiline times. If noduplicates are found, the alert system may continue its normal operationof receiving and comparing new data records against stored data records.If there a duplicate is detected, the alert system may generate an alertthat is indicative of a likelihood of an improper duplicate data recordassociated with the data string from the filtered data records at block716. The alert may contain an institution identifier and/or specify asource of the duplicate data record. The computing device may identifyany institutions affected by the duplicate data record and may use theidentified institutions to determine which institutions should receivethe alert. In some embodiments, a determination of whether to generatean alert for a particular institution may be based on a channelindicator type associated with the offending data record. For example aparticular institution may only want to be alerted where at least one ofthe duplicate data records was submitted by a user with their personalwireless device, while another institution wishes to be alerted upon anytype of possible duplicate data records. This allows each institution tocustomize when they get alerts. In some embodiments, the alert mayinclude an indication of the channel indicator type, which may be usedby the alerted institution to determine what actions it should take tomitigate or otherwise address the particular instance of improperduplicate data record. In some embodiments, each institution may haveits own preferences for a particular data format for the alert (whichmay be established upon enrollment). In such cases, the computing devicemay format the alert according to the preferences of the intendedrecipient institution. The format of the alert may be driven by thehardware and software capabilities of the remote device of the recipientinstitution. In some embodiments, the desired format may be based on thetype of duplicate data record contained within the alert.

It should be noted that the notifications can be generated fordistribution in various ways. In one embodiment, an alert is sent to theinstitution providing the current data record that gave rise to thematch (i.e., the record that was matched against a previous datarecord), and an alert is also sent to the institution that provided theprevious (matched) data record. In other embodiments, the computingdevice may generate alerts to only the institution providing the mostrecent data record, or alternatively generate alerts to all affectedinstitutions.

In some embodiments, if there is a duplicate detected, then thecomputing device applies filters to the match (such as using noisesuppression module 210) to eliminate data records that might give riseto a false match as described in relation to process 400. For example,an institution submitting a data record for review might request onlyalerts for certain types of data record duplicates (such as remotesubmissions by users' personal wireless devices).

At block 718, the computing device may assess risk factors that theidentified duplicate data record is improper (such as by using riskscoring/analysis module 212). Each institution may have its own set ofpreferences of risk factors, including which risk factors to considerand how to weight each risk factor. These factors may be used togenerate a risk score that may be included with or as part of the alertand may be used by the alerted institution to mitigate and/or otherwisehandle the possible duplication error as described in greater detail inprocess 400.

At block 720, the alert (or multiple alerts to different institutions)may be sent by the computing device to at least one remote computingdevice associated with one or more of the institutions. It should beappreciated that in sending an alert, a risk score or other riskassessment could also be sent to each affected institution, to permitthe institution to better understand the risk and determine what kind ofremedial action to take. The transmitted alert may cause the alert todisplay on the at least one remote computing device. For example, thealert causes the remote computing device to automatically display thealert. In some embodiments, the generation, transmission, and display ofthe alert on the remote computing device may be done in real-time toprovide affected institutions a maximum opportunity to mitigate and/orotherwise address a particular situation. In some embodiments, prior totransmitting the alert, the alert may be encrypted, such as by using oneof the keys of the asymmetric key pair. This helps protect any sensitivedata included on the alert. To further enhance the security of the data,the alert may be transmitted over the private, secured network that isestablished specifically for use by the alert system and the devicesinteracting therewith.

In some embodiments, the remote computing device may be the institutiondata source. In other words, the device being alerted of the potentialduplicate data record use of an instrument may be the device thatprovided the newly received data record that was determined to be aduplicate. In some embodiments, the alert may include the communicationaddress of the source of the particular data record that triggered thealert (or other affected institution that is different than therecipient institution). This allows the recipient institution to clickon, otherwise interact with, and/or otherwise use the communicationaddress to establish a networked communication connection with thesource of the particular data record (or other affected institution).For example, clicking the communication address may open an emailcomposition window on the remote computing device that may be used tocommunicate with the source. Such techniques not only allow forreal-time alerting of potentially improper duplicate data records, butprovide quick processes for contacting other institutions to betterunderstand and react to a possible improper duplication.

FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary computer system uponwhich embodiments of the present invention may be implemented. Thisexample illustrates a computer system 600 such as may be used, in whole,in part, or with various modifications, to provide the functions of theduplicate data record detection system 110, as well as other componentsand functions of the invention described herein.

The computer system 600 is shown comprising hardware elements that maybe electrically coupled via a bus 690. The hardware elements may includeone or more central processing units 610, one or more input devices 620(e.g., a mouse, a keyboard, etc.), and one or more output devices 630(e.g., a display device, a printer, etc.). The computer system 600 mayalso include one or more storage devices 640, representing remote,local, fixed, and/or removable storage devices and storage media fortemporarily and/or more permanently containing computer-readableinformation, and one or more storage media reader(s) 650 for accessingthe storage device(s) 640. By way of example, storage device(s) 640 maybe disk drives, optical storage devices, solid-state storage device suchas a random access memory (“RAM”) and/or a read-only memory (“ROM”),which can be programmable, flash-updateable or the like.

The computer system 600 may additionally include a communications system660 (e.g., a modem, a network card—wireless or wired, an infra-redcommunication device, a Bluetooth™ device, a near field communications(NFC) device, a cellular communication device, etc.). The communicationssystem 660 may permit data to be exchanged with a network, system,computer, mobile device and/or other component as described earlier. Thesystem 600 also includes working memory 680, which may include RAM andROM devices as described above. In some embodiments, the computer system600 may also include a processing acceleration unit 670, which caninclude a digital signal processor, a special-purpose processor and/orthe like.

The computer system 600 may also comprise software elements, shown asbeing located within a working memory 680, including an operating system684 and/or other code 688. Software code 688 may be used forimplementing functions of various elements of the architecture asdescribed herein. For example, software stored on and/or executed by acomputer system, such as system 600, can be used in implementing theprocesses seen in FIGS. 3 and 4.

It should be appreciated that alternative embodiments of a computersystem 600 may have numerous variations from that described above. Forexample, customized hardware might also be used and/or particularelements might be implemented in hardware, software 25 (includingportable software, such as applets), or both. Furthermore, there may beconnection to other computing devices such as network input/output anddata acquisition devices (not shown).

While various methods and processes described herein may be describedwith respect to particular structural and/or functional components forease of description, methods of the invention are not limited to anyparticular structural and/or functional architecture but instead can beimplemented on any suitable hardware, firmware, and/or softwareconfiguration. Similarly, while various functionalities are ascribed tocertain individual system components, unless the context dictatesotherwise, this functionality can be distributed or combined amongvarious other system components in accordance with different embodimentsof the invention. As one example, the duplicate data record detectionsystem 110 may be implemented by a single system having one or morestorage device and processing elements. As another example, the system110 may be implemented by plural systems, with its respective functionsdistributed across different systems either in one location or across aplurality of linked locations.

Moreover, while the various flows and processes described herein (e.g.,those illustrated in FIGS. 3-5) are described in a particular order forease of description, unless the context dictates otherwise, variousprocedures may be reordered, added, and/or omitted in accordance withvarious embodiments of the invention. Moreover, the procedures describedwith respect to one method or process may be incorporated within otherdescribed methods or processes; likewise, system components describedaccording to a particular structural architecture and/or with respect toone system may be organized in alternative structural architecturesand/or incorporated within other described systems. Hence, while variousembodiments may be described with (or without) certain features for easeof description and to illustrate exemplary features, the variouscomponents and/or features described herein with respect to a particularembodiment can be substituted, added, and/or subtracted to provide otherembodiments, unless the context dictates otherwise.

Consequently, although the invention has been described with respect toexemplary embodiments, it will be appreciated that the invention isintended to cover all modifications and equivalents within the scope ofthe following claims.

1. (canceled)
 2. A method of providing alerts over a network to a remotecomputing device, the method comprising: receiving, by a computersystem, a plurality of data records from at least one institution datasource over a network, each of the plurality of data records identifyingan instrument being presented at one or more financial institutions andcomprising a channel type indicator that indicates a manner in which aparticular data record was presented to a particular financialinstitution; comparing, by the computing system, each of the pluralityof data records to other data records; identifying, by the computingsystem, at least two data records that identify a same instrument;assessing, by the computing system, a risk that the same instrument isbeing used improperly, wherein the assessment of risk is based, at leastin part, on the channel indicator type associated with each of the atleast two data records associated with the same instrument; generating,by the computing system, an alert that comprises an indication of theassessed risk and an institution identifier that specifies a source ofone or more of the at least two data records; and transmitting, by thecomputing system, the alert in real-time to at least one remotecomputing device associated with at least one of the one or morefinancial institutions.
 3. The method of providing alerts over a networkto a remote computing device of claim 2, wherein: the other data recordscomprise the plurality of data records received from the one or morefinancial institutions.
 4. The method of providing alerts over a networkto a remote computing device of claim 2, wherein: the plurality of datarecords comprise previously stored data records.
 5. The method ofproviding alerts over network to a remote computing device of claim 2,wherein: assessing the risk is further based on an analysis of aplurality of factors selected from a group consisting of: a type of theat least two data records, a timing of the at least two data records,source information of the at least two data records, historical datarelated to the type of the at least two data records, historical datarelated to the type of the at least two data records, and historicaldata related to a user associated with the at least two data records. 6.The method of providing alerts over a network to a remote computingdevice of claim 2, wherein: the plurality of data records are encryptedusing one key of an asymmetric key pair; and the method furthercomprises decrypting the encrypted data records using another key of theasymmetric key pair.
 7. The method of providing alerts over a network toa remote computing device of claim 2, further comprising: receiving aplurality of risk factors and weights associated with the plurality ofrisk factors from the at least one of the one or more financialinstitutions, wherein assessing the risk is further based on theplurality of risk factors and weights associated with the plurality ofrisk factors.
 8. The method of providing alerts over a network to aremote computing device of claim 2, wherein: assessing the riskcomprises generating a risk score; and the alert comprises the riskscore.
 9. The method of providing alerts over a network to a remotecomputing device of claim 2, further comprising: receiving an alertpreference from the at least one of the one or more financialinstitutions, wherein the alert preference indicates one or more channelindicators types for which alerts should be sent.
 10. A system forproviding alerts over a network to a remote computing device,comprising: a network interface; at least one processing device; and atleast one memory device having instructions stored thereon that, whenexecuted, cause the at least one processing device to: receive aplurality of data records from at least one institution data source overa network, each of the plurality of data records identifying aninstrument being presented at one or more financial institutions andcomprising a channel type indicator that indicates a manner in which aparticular data record was presented to a particular financialinstitution; compare each of the plurality of data records to other datarecords; identify at least two data records that identify a sameinstrument; assess a risk that the same instrument is being usedimproperly, wherein the assessment of risk is based, at least in part,on the channel indicator type associated with each of the at least twodata records associated with the same instrument; generate an alert thatcomprises an indication of the assessed risk and an institutionidentifier that specifies a source of one or more of the at least twodata records; and transmit the alert in real-time to at least one remotecomputing device associated with at least one of the one or morefinancial institutions.
 11. The system for providing alerts over anetwork to a remote computing device of claim 10, wherein: the alertcomprises a type of improper use associated with the at least two datarecords.
 12. The system for providing alerts over a network to a remotecomputing device of claim 10, wherein: the at least one of the one ormore financial institutions comprises a particular financial institutionassociated with a most recent of the at least two data records.
 13. Thesystem for providing alerts over a network to a remote computing deviceof claim 10, wherein: the at least one of the one or more financialinstitutions comprises a particular financial institution associatedwith a first data record present of the at least two data records. 14.The system for providing alerts over a network to a remote computingdevice of claim 10, wherein: the at least one of the one or morefinancial institutions comprises each financial institution associatedwith any of the at least two data records.
 15. The system for providingalerts over a network to a remote computing device of claim 10, wherein:the network interface communicates over a private secure network that isused by the system and the one or more financial institutions.
 16. Thesystem for providing alerts over a network to a remote computing deviceof claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the at least oneprocessing device to: store the plurality of data records.
 17. Thesystem for providing alerts over a network to a remote computing deviceof claim 10, wherein: the channel indicator type associated with atleast one of the at least two data records is associated with a remotesubmission from a user device.
 18. A non-transitory machine readablemedium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause oneor more computing devices to: receive a plurality of data records fromat least one institution data source over a network, each of theplurality of data records identifying an instrument being presented atone or more financial institutions and comprising a channel typeindicator that indicates a manner in which a particular data record waspresented to a particular financial institution; compare each of theplurality of data records to other data records; identify at least twodata records that identify a same instrument; assess a risk that thesame instrument is being used improperly, wherein the assessment of riskis based, at least in part, on the channel indicator type associatedwith each of the at least two data records associated with the sameinstrument; generate an alert that comprises an indication of theassessed risk and an institution identifier that specifies a source ofone or more of the at least two data records; and transmit the alert inreal-time to at least one remote computing device associated with atleast one of the one or more financial institutions.
 19. Thenon-transitory machine readable medium of claim 18, wherein: each of theplurality of data records are received in real-time.
 20. Thenon-transitory machine readable medium of claim 18, wherein: theplurality of data records are received in batch form.
 21. Thenon-transitory machine readable medium of claim 18, wherein theinstructions further cause the one or more computing devices to:suppress one or more of the plurality of data records from beingidentified as improper duplicates when the one or more of the pluralityof data records have characteristics that are determined to likelyprovide false positives.